A couple of people have told me recently that they don't like to back at less than 1.7. My question to them is "Why on Earth not?"
There seems to be a misunderstanding that 1.7 is 'too short', but what determines whether or not a price is 'too short' is not the number itself, but its relationship to value.
For me, it is all about value. If you could walk into a casino and get 1.6 at Roulette on numbers 1 to 24, would you turn it down because the price is too short?
Would you snap up the 36-1 available on a single number because the price is high?
I rather like backing at 1.x if the bet is good value. The losing runs are short, which suits my style, and the more people who don't like backing at low odds, the better.
See http://betyourlife.blogspot.com/2008/09/pulling-fast-one.html
About Me
- Cassini
- I have had a life-long interest in sports and after studying Pure Mathematics with Statistics at secondary school, have been fascinated by odds and probability. The first system I came up with was a simple one - back the favourite and double up after a loss until a winner. Simple enough in theory, and I told my Dad about it. Not being a betting man himself, he ran it by some of his colleagues, and came home to tell me that it wouldn’t work because a long losing run would mean that the bank would be empty. Then there was always the possibility that the winner would be returned at odds-on, meaning that the total returns would not match the outlay. Not what a ten year old wants to hear! Only slightly daunted, I then went on a search for the Holy Grail, the secret to riches that I knew was out there somewhere. Finally in 2004 I stumbled across an article about Betting Exchanges and four years later I was able to make a steady profit.
No comments:
Post a Comment